Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Diego Mamani
ParticipantThe anti-Walmart arguments are so ridiculous…
(1) “They pay low wages.” Well, if they were low, nobody would accept to work for them. The truth is that WM hires many people who would be otherwise unemployable (single mothers who have been on wlefare for too long, etc. A job, even an entry-level one, gives them dignity and gives them the skills to search for better jobs in the future.
(2) “They sell low quality goods.” If that were true, then why are WM stores so full of people buying there? WM sells merchandise at low prices, which make families’ incomes go farther. Is that bad?
What’s really insulting to some of us is that the anti-WM groups want to influence local and regional giovernments to keep the stores from opening. Such government interference in the market stinks of communism. People who dislike free markets and competition so much should consider what happened to the USSR (failed and collapsed) and Cuba (the poorest, weakest country in the hemisphere).
ParticipantThe anti-Walmart arguments are so ridiculous…
(1) “They pay low wages.” Well, if they were low, nobody would accept to work for them. The truth is that WM hires many people who would be otherwise unemployable (single mothers who have been on wlefare for too long, etc. A job, even an entry-level one, gives them dignity and gives them the skills to search for better jobs in the future.
(2) “They sell low quality goods.” If that were true, then why are WM stores so full of people buying there? WM sells merchandise at low prices, which make families’ incomes go farther. Is that bad?
What’s really insulting to some of us is that the anti-WM groups want to influence local and regional giovernments to keep the stores from opening. Such government interference in the market stinks of communism. People who dislike free markets and competition so much should consider what happened to the USSR (failed and collapsed) and Cuba (the poorest, weakest country in the hemisphere).
ParticipantThe anti-Walmart arguments are so ridiculous…
(1) “They pay low wages.” Well, if they were low, nobody would accept to work for them. The truth is that WM hires many people who would be otherwise unemployable (single mothers who have been on wlefare for too long, etc. A job, even an entry-level one, gives them dignity and gives them the skills to search for better jobs in the future.
(2) “They sell low quality goods.” If that were true, then why are WM stores so full of people buying there? WM sells merchandise at low prices, which make families’ incomes go farther. Is that bad?
What’s really insulting to some of us is that the anti-WM groups want to influence local and regional giovernments to keep the stores from opening. Such government interference in the market stinks of communism. People who dislike free markets and competition so much should consider what happened to the USSR (failed and collapsed) and Cuba (the poorest, weakest country in the hemisphere).
ParticipantThe anti-Walmart arguments are so ridiculous…
(1) “They pay low wages.” Well, if they were low, nobody would accept to work for them. The truth is that WM hires many people who would be otherwise unemployable (single mothers who have been on wlefare for too long, etc. A job, even an entry-level one, gives them dignity and gives them the skills to search for better jobs in the future.
(2) “They sell low quality goods.” If that were true, then why are WM stores so full of people buying there? WM sells merchandise at low prices, which make families’ incomes go farther. Is that bad?
What’s really insulting to some of us is that the anti-WM groups want to influence local and regional giovernments to keep the stores from opening. Such government interference in the market stinks of communism. People who dislike free markets and competition so much should consider what happened to the USSR (failed and collapsed) and Cuba (the poorest, weakest country in the hemisphere).
ParticipantThe train + flyaway bus is OK if you don’t mind the long time it’ll take. Renting a car is also a pain: you have to go the agency to pick it up, wait for them to fill up their computer screens, put up with their hard sell for additional insurance, etc. And when you get to LAX you have to drop it off, then wait for the rental agency shuttle to take you to your terminal.
I’d just take the door-to-door airport shuttle, or fly from SNA even if that means foregoing a non-stop flight. Unless the fare difference is so high that I’m happy to pay for the shuttle.
How much can you save with the rent vs. shuttle? Ten bucks?
ParticipantThe train + flyaway bus is OK if you don’t mind the long time it’ll take. Renting a car is also a pain: you have to go the agency to pick it up, wait for them to fill up their computer screens, put up with their hard sell for additional insurance, etc. And when you get to LAX you have to drop it off, then wait for the rental agency shuttle to take you to your terminal.
I’d just take the door-to-door airport shuttle, or fly from SNA even if that means foregoing a non-stop flight. Unless the fare difference is so high that I’m happy to pay for the shuttle.
How much can you save with the rent vs. shuttle? Ten bucks?
ParticipantThe train + flyaway bus is OK if you don’t mind the long time it’ll take. Renting a car is also a pain: you have to go the agency to pick it up, wait for them to fill up their computer screens, put up with their hard sell for additional insurance, etc. And when you get to LAX you have to drop it off, then wait for the rental agency shuttle to take you to your terminal.
I’d just take the door-to-door airport shuttle, or fly from SNA even if that means foregoing a non-stop flight. Unless the fare difference is so high that I’m happy to pay for the shuttle.
How much can you save with the rent vs. shuttle? Ten bucks?
ParticipantThe train + flyaway bus is OK if you don’t mind the long time it’ll take. Renting a car is also a pain: you have to go the agency to pick it up, wait for them to fill up their computer screens, put up with their hard sell for additional insurance, etc. And when you get to LAX you have to drop it off, then wait for the rental agency shuttle to take you to your terminal.
I’d just take the door-to-door airport shuttle, or fly from SNA even if that means foregoing a non-stop flight. Unless the fare difference is so high that I’m happy to pay for the shuttle.
How much can you save with the rent vs. shuttle? Ten bucks?
ParticipantThe train + flyaway bus is OK if you don’t mind the long time it’ll take. Renting a car is also a pain: you have to go the agency to pick it up, wait for them to fill up their computer screens, put up with their hard sell for additional insurance, etc. And when you get to LAX you have to drop it off, then wait for the rental agency shuttle to take you to your terminal.
I’d just take the door-to-door airport shuttle, or fly from SNA even if that means foregoing a non-stop flight. Unless the fare difference is so high that I’m happy to pay for the shuttle.
How much can you save with the rent vs. shuttle? Ten bucks?
ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
ParticipantI don’t understand the OP. The “three-way race” lasts only until the Democrats nominate their one presidential candidate. After that it’s going to be either McCain vs. Clinton (McCain wins) or McCain vs. Obama (Obama might win).
Regarding ZK‘s comment: being elected president is all, or mostly, about charisma. Whoever gets to the White House will have armies of highly talented speech-writers and expert advisors in all sort of areas. The president is a figurehead who is there to lead by inspiring and motivating. Of course, it’s true that the wrong kind of advisors (like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove) may be chosen by the president, but that is a post-election and post-inauguration issue.
To get back to my original point: H. Clinton lacks charisma. She’s bright and experienced, and the only issue of substance against her is that she appears to be politically to the left of her husband. But issues of substance are, for the most part, secondary in a presidential election: It’s charisma that matters, and she has little of it.
Even though she’s bright and experienced, she would never had made it this far in a presidential nomination without her First Lady experience. Why? Because she’s uncharismatic.
McCain and Obama, on the other hand, are extremely charismatic. I hope the Democrats see this and nominate Obama unless they want another eight years outside of the White House.
-
AuthorPosts
